Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][2.5] Single linked lists for Linux, overly complicated v2 | Date | Tue, 1 Oct 2002 18:05:15 +0200 |
| |
On Monday 30 September 2002 22:04, Zach Brown wrote: > but really, I think these are DOA.
No argument there.
> having to define a single magical > structure member makes these more trouble than they're worth. I've come > to prefer wli's 'struct list' approach. It has the added benefit of > actually being sanely implementable with shared code, something > ridiculously low memory setups might appreciate.
Have you tried it in a real program? I have. It's not nice to use. My original response to Bill:
> > How's this look? > > Unfortunately, not good. You get code like: > > foo = (struct mylist *) slist_pop((slist *) &somelist->next); > > So type safety goes out the window, and you gain some niceness in the > definition in exchange for ugliness in usage, the wrong tradeoff imho.
Single linked lists are so simple - just write the darn code out in full. Yes, the fact that you can't sanely generalize these things shows that C as a language falls a few cards short of a full deck, but we knew that. It makes nice kernels, it does not make art.
-- Daniel
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |